back to article Microsoft's top legal eagle: US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws

Microsoft's top legal eagle is standing firmly against the US government's attempts to force it to hand over users' data stored outside the US. In a blog post, Microsoft’s general counsel and exec veep Brad Smith said that he believes the law is on the company's side as it resists attempts to force it to turn over a customer’s …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

    Yes they can... and they will if it suits them...

    "Safe harbour" is basically a sham and once we get a new TTIP treaty shoved down our collective throats it will be all over...

    1. Phil W
      Joke

      Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

      Yes but the thing is, if you're going to ignore foreign laws or violate their sovereignty in this way, you're supposed to do it in secret and pretend it's not happening not issue warrants to US companies trying to force them to do it.

      Openly ignore the laws and rights of other countries who are supposed to be your friends is just bad form!

      1. dan1980

        Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

        @Phil W

        ". . . If you're going to ignore foreign laws or violate their sovereignty in this way, you're supposed to do it in secret . . ."

        Absolutely. Well, I think that's still not on except in cases of national security - of which drug-enforcement (such as this one is, I believe) and copyright (e.g. Mega Upload) are not a part - but yes, if you do this, you should do it secretly.

        Which is not to say without the knowledge of the companies and/or countries involved, just that it should not be out in the open.

        What evidence we do have strongly suggests that Microsoft* has been very receptive and helpful when it comes to government requests for personal data. You've got to comply with the law, of course, but it seems that MS were particularly accommodating. So we know (as much as we can) that MS are no personal privacy champion so given that is the case, they have to be seen to be very much against this kind of thing now.

        Had the US agencies been clandestine enough then MS may well have handed over the data and it would have all gone on quietly. I am massively against such actions, of course - I just don't understand why they forced Microsoft's hand like this. Give them the ability to deny and be outraged if it is ever found out and that's all they really need.

        * - As well as several of the other US tech companies supporting them in this case.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

          What evidence we do have strongly suggests that Microsoft* has been very receptive and helpful when it comes to government requests for personal data. You've got to comply with the law, of course, but it seems that MS were particularly accommodating.

          In recent years they have often fought flaky warrants, but when presented with a valid warrant, there isn't much they can do. It is when something as obviously fishy as the current situation that they react.

          You are right, it isn't out of a love of protecting personal privacy, it is not wanting to break the law. If they hand over the data in Ireland to the USA without an Irish or EU warrant, then they are open to prosecution and large fines in Ireland and Europe or breaking the law. In the worst case, it could mean that the directors of Microsoft Ireland end up in prison for breach of Data Protection laws. It will also destroy their international business, especially in Europe (and that of any other USA based cloud tech company doing business internationally).

          On the other hand, if they don't hand over the data in the USA, then the directors in the USA could face fines and inprisonment for contempt of court...

          I just don't understand why they forced Microsoft's hand like this. Give them the ability to deny and be outraged if it is ever found out and that's all they really need.

          Acting outraged won't help in such a case, non-US business are already looking sceptically at cloud services, because they were only quasi-legal in the first place - in many European countries it is illegal to store personal data on computers outside the EU (which is why MS ensure that data of EU citizens is held within EU borders where possible) and tax relevant data must usually be held within the country where the company is based - in Germany, tax relevant data cannot be stored outside of Germany without a special exemption certificate from the German tax office (Finanzamt).

          That makes using true clouds difficult in the first place. If the data does end up being stored outside of the country or the EU, then the company is legally responsible for that breach. They are also legally responsible if the data is handed to a third party outside the EU without a valid EU warrant. That means if Microsoft, Google, Amazon or whoever hands the US Feds data from a European company's cloud store, the company faces prosecution and fines (and possible imprisonment for its directors) for breaching Data Protection laws, even though the data was handed over without their consent or knowledge. This makes cloud services pretty much a non-starter when the US Government doesn't start playing silly games!

    2. Mage Silver badge
      Big Brother

      Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

      ECJ has recently ruled that "Safe Harbour" isn't worth paper written on.

      Irish Data commissioner then warns EU citizens that they shouldn't use Facebook as it doesn't comply with EU Nations individual laws.

      It's frightening that I'm on Microsoft's side on this.

      1. big_D Silver badge

        Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

        @Mage not just Ireland, Germany had a huge media campaign in December and January that the coming changes to Facebook are illegal and people should quit the service.

        Both my daughters deleted their accounts in January.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

      US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws

      Umm, actually, they can, for a very simple reason: US lawmakers only have a responsibility to the US, even though they even seem to forget that at times. Allowing foreign law to trump US law is similar to stomping all over foreign sovereignty when they are abroad. They try, but never quite manage and so have to grasp for the old club of trade agreements to get their way.

      It's quite entertaining what a grand circus plays around this issue because it's really very, very simple in nature:

      In a blog post, Microsoft’s general counsel and exec veep Brad Smith said that he believes the law is on the company's side as it resists attempts to force it to turn over a customer’s email stored in an Irish data centre.

      That is grand BS and he knows it, but the game is about a LOT of money: preventing customers from realising just how much problems they have complying with EU privacy laws if they use a US based service provider. And trust me, the big boys already know it or their lobbyists wouldn't fill up EU corridors in Brussels.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

        "US Obama cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

        There - fixed it for ya, since the warrant was approved by Barry.

        DOH!

    4. big_D Silver badge

      Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

      The US government seem to be doing everything in their power to kill the US IT industry, especially internet companies. Very strange behaviour.

      If the US authorities win this case, then it will be the end of the international cloud. It will mean a splintering of services, with them being national based (or maybe EU or Switzerland based).

      Microsoft, along with the likes of Red Hat might survive, as they sell the software behind a lot of cloud infrastructure, but you can wave goodbye to Facebook, WhatsApp, Azure, AWS, iCloud, Outlook.com, Office365, Salesforce etc. especially any business orientated cloud services. They will be untenable, no business is going to risk prison for its executives, because their hosting services hand out their data "illegally" at the drop of a hat - "illegally" for the jurisdiction in which the company operates, not where their cloud provider is based.

      1. h4rm0ny
        Headmaster

        Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

        >>"Microsoft, along with the likes of Red Hat might survive, as they sell the software behind a lot of cloud infrastructure, but you can wave goodbye to Facebook, WhatsApp, Azure, AWS, iCloud, Outlook.com, Office365, Salesforce etc. "

        They wont go away. It will have very serious consequences, but they have options. Azure from the technical side already has everything it needs to do proper data segregation and indeed it does it already. If Microsoft lose (and I seriously hope for them, us and the US IT industry that it doesn't), then they pull some corporate shellgame and appoint licensor corporations in Europe and Asia that under strict controls allow them to be "Azure Partners" or whatever terminology Microsoft come up with.

        MS are mildly evil, not stupid. There are a number of ways they can divest themselves of "control" but ensure the money keeps coming in. Azure already functions in a way that allows this, it's the costly restructuring and headaches that come with doing it on the legal / corporate structure side that would be the problem. Also the PR fallout from losing this case and handing over European data to the US government would harm them.

        AWS have to do a little more work on proper data segregation (I think) but basically have the same options available to them. RedHat can pretty much roll on as they are now regardless of how this plays out. Salesforce I don't know much about.

        1. big_D Silver badge

          Re: "US cannot ignore foreign privacy laws"

          They wont go away. It will have very serious consequences, but they have options. Azure from the technical side already has everything it needs to do proper data segregation and indeed it does it already. If Microsoft lose (and I seriously hope for them, us and the US IT industry that it doesn't), then they pull some corporate shellgame and appoint licensor corporations in Europe and Asia that under strict controls allow them to be "Azure Partners" or whatever terminology Microsoft come up with.

          That is what I meant by MS selling their technology further. Azure itself, a worldwide, single cloud won't be usable outside of the USA, but they will sell the software and know-how to set up 100% regionally owned "mini" Azures.

          Amazon is harder, that is their own technology and would require that they set up regional companies that purchase the licenses from Amazon USA, but they cannot be subsidiaries, like they are today.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Like ..

  3. RealBigAl

    I still can't get over the fact Microsoft appear to the good guys for once....

    1. Peter2 Silver badge

      Do you really think it's a moral decision on Microsoft's part?

      Or do you think that they know full well that if they lose this ruling then trust in the cloud is *completely* dead in foreign nations across the world?

      Microsoft is a major cloud vendor with massive investments in cloudy stuff (even office 365) and they stand to lose truly massive amounts of money if the US government wins. They pretty much have no other option but to fight this and exhaust every single avenue of appeal from a commercial point of view. Given that, why not also milk it for PR to the greatest extent possible?

      1. dogged

        > Do you really think it's a moral decision on Microsoft's part?

        Nope. I think they're pushing privacy as a brand-differentiation, a USP to make customers go with them over, for example, Google. The big G is not so much about privacy, except their own.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "> Do you really think it's a moral decision on Microsoft's part?

          Nope. I think they're pushing privacy as a brand-differentiation,"

          I don't think it's even that. They know it will be difficult to impossible for them, as a US company, to peddle cloud stuff into a good many markets. Note that: as a US company. The same applies to other US companies as well. If they lose they leave those markets open to non-US companies to move in and take over. It's not brand-differentiation, it's country differentiation. That's why they have so many amicus briefs from the rest of the US industry.

          1. Fungus Bob

            If MS loses how long before all these US companies end up getting bought out by their Irish subsidiaries and become Irish companies? On paper, anyway...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Do you really think it's a moral decision on Microsoft's part?

        Or do you think that they know full well that if they lose this ruling then trust in the cloud is *completely* dead in foreign nations across the world?

        Got it in one. That's also why they have so much support from other vendors as they are in the same boat. The problem is that such a precedent cannot be allowed to be created, because that would enable any company that wants to hide data from the government to quickly ship it abroad. I can see at least 4 very large accounting firms that would be on that one in a flash..

        Honestly, I cannot see MS win this one, even if they emptied all the coffers. The best they can hope for is that the demand is rescinded so that the matter never gets decided in court.

      3. big_D Silver badge

        @Peter2 exactly, if MS lose, it will turn American cloud companies into purely domestic operators, they will be pariahs in other countries.

        MS have one trump, that they sell a lot of the infrastructure behind cloud services - they could start selling Outlook.com and Office365 turnkey solutions to local providers, for example, but there is also a lot of open source solutions that can do similar things.

        But I don't see Google selling its search engine, YouTube, GMail etc.

        1. P. Lee

          >MS have one trump, that they sell a lot of the infrastructure behind cloud services - they could start selling Outlook.com and Office365 turnkey solutions to local providers,

          They could, or they could go the licensing route, but both of those options mean the Microsoft name can't be on the product, which means it will be a much harder sell. It may be harder for all the tech companies, but now, most of them are competing against their customers - selling cloud vs customer-owned-on-site IT infrastructure.

          1. h4rm0ny

            >>"They could, or they could go the licensing route, but both of those options mean the Microsoft name can't be on the product, which means it will be a much harder sell"

            "HP Cloud - A Microsoft Azure Partner".

            The branding side of this is actually the easiest part. It's the business organization and contractual sides that would be a (surmountable) nuisance. I actually think the biggest concern for Microsoft and other American businesses, is the PR hit from if they end up handing over customer data to the US government - that's something they're extremely keen to avoid.

      4. h4rm0ny

        >>"Do you really think it's a moral decision on Microsoft's part?"

        Obviously not. I don't think anyone including the person you replied to thinks that MS lack self-interest! :D But the point is that they are currently the "Good Guys" because privacy is a selling point to us and MS will do anything to get our money - up to an including good things on occasion.

        It's why I always prefer to pay for my software than to use a Freemium model. I want people to compete for my money on quality and ethics, rather than cost and hidden data mining.

  4. john devoy

    Why wouldn't the USA ignore privacy laws? They ignore all other laws when it suits them.

  5. thesykes

    Wouldn't it have just been quicker and easier for the US Government to go to an Irish court and ask for a subpoena from them for the email?

    I mean, it's not as if they'd use a judgement against Microsoft to try and force every US-based tech company to hand over all their overseas documents, would they?

    1. elDog

      Because the US agencies would have to expose their rationale to an outside entity

      Currently they get away with snatching all sorts of data from US and overseas people without more than a cursory glance and rubber stamp by the FISA court.

      Having to actually present real evidence about who/what they are chasing would be waaaay too much work, thanks.

      1. Sanctimonious Prick
        Coat

        Re: Because the US agencies would have to expose their rationale to an outside entity

        "Once Microsoft filed its challenge to the NSL, the FBI decided to withdraw the letter. In other words, it dropped the matter voluntarily."

        ...

        "the FBI obtained the requested information through lawful means from a third party, the Customer, in a way that maintains the confidentiality of the underlying investigation." [link]

        Why bother with the courts? pfft!

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Sure, but it looks someone attempted to establish that all that paperwork to obtain data under existing agreements was useless, just ask the US company and get what you want. It was an incredibly stupid move, but it looks there's a lot of stupidity in some sectors today, even more than usual.

    3. Mark 85
      Unhappy

      I mean, it's not as if they'd use a judgment against Microsoft to try and force every US-based tech company to hand over all their overseas documents, would they?

      Yes they would. US law has a lot of basis in precedent. If one case like this is won, then the rest will be a cakewalk. I do believe the very concept and business of the "cloud" is at stake here. If government wins, every cloud provider might as well just close their doors and turn off the lights. Yes, there will be layoffs, less money flowing, but government won't care. They will have one this one and kept their control. And then one day... down the road in the future, someone in government will remember there used to be a pile of businesses running clouds and wonder where they all went and why there's no taxes from them.

  6. Spaceman Spiff

    Generally

    Generally, I think that Microsoft.sucks, but I applaud them in this case!

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    stoopid

    The first rule of "fisa" club is you can't talk about "fisa" club

    Don't be so gullible.

  8. Maty

    turn it round ...

    If the Chinese or Russian government wanted access to emails on servers based in the USA in violation of US privacy laws, would there be any doubt of the response?

    How do you spell 'hypocrisy' in American English?

    1. Mephistro
      Coat

      Re: turn it round ...

      "How do you spell 'hypocrisy' in American English?"

      Mmhhh... 'Hypocrisy' is the American spelling, the British one would be 'Hypoucrisy'.

      Thank you! Thank you! I'll be here all week.

    2. Keven E.

      Turn it over...

      "How do you spell 'hypocrisy' in American English?"

      C.i.t.i.z.e.n.s.U.n.i.t.e.d

      1. x 7

        Re: Turn it over...

        "How do you spell 'hypocrisy' in American English?"

        "American values"

        1. ben_myers

          Re: Turn it over...

          "American values"? No, its the son-of-bitches who legislate and run the US govt who have the lousy American values. And many of us here wonder what it will take to overhaul a corrupt government. You can't vote the bastards out, because the new set of bastards will be just as bad. And you can't get them to legislate against their own interests. So the American dream is dead, brought down by the megacorporations that run the government.

          But PLEASE do not tar and feather all Americans with the same "American values" brush!!!!!!

          1. Keven E.

            Re: Turn it over...

            "But PLEASE do not tar and feather all Americans with the same "American values" brush!!!!!

            That the *pursuit of happiness* is subjective... really pisses-off libertarians and so-called "capitalists".

            It really should be "The United Sovereignties of America", then we can just ignore Texasistan, and the neighboring like *states... have them sign on separately to the Geneva convention. Don't expect us northern *states to come to your rescue when you personally start losing whatever war it is you feel like waging... trying to maintain your black gold dominance and your patriarchical abusiveness. You too, Califoniawood. We know you really have no "intellectual" property, and you don't represent US from a cultural perspective, so stop negotiating worldwide trade agreements and copyright laws for anyone else.

    3. streaky

      Re: turn it round ...

      You're not turning around properly. There's no rule of law in China or Russia, you have to suggest somewhere with a functioning legal system else it looks a bit batshit - Russian company would just hand over the data for fear of being Putin's next target, there'd be no discussion over it.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: turn it round ...

        > There's no rule of law in China or Russia

        Says the great expert on those two countries.

        1. streaky

          Re: turn it round ...

          Says the great expert on those two countries.

          They can't even frame people for assassinating Putin's political adversaries right. You don't need to be an expert to see Russia's entire legal system is top-to-bottom batshit. A lot of western countries have problems, some of them fairly serious - but nothing on that scale.

          1. h4rm0ny

            Re: turn it round ...

            >>"They can't even frame people for assassinating Putin's political adversaries right."

            Well we left Dr. David Kelly with a barely-plausible suicide in the woods and then ordered there not to be a proper inquest - it's not like Britain is either unwilling to kill inconvenient people when the stakes are high enough, or necessarily perfect at hiding it when they do.

            (No black helicopter icon - the Kelly case is far from some tangled and improbable conspiracy, it's depressingly likely that he was killed on the orders of someone in our own government.)

            1. streaky

              Re: turn it round ...

              The idea that Kelly was murdered is frankly pretty absurd. Here's a guy with very loose connections to the Iraq thing with no real voice (literally) - who didn't like being force-fed into the limelight. If the assumption is the government goes around arbitrarily killing people who simply criticise it and share not secrets about anything they have bigger fish to fry.

              There's been an absurd waste of taxpayer funds over the whole affair; not for nothing but even on the chance it was true and not completely absurd - at least they're not using the assassination of one political adversary to frame more political adversaries and even if they were the questions are at least being asked - again, unlike in Russia.

              1. h4rm0ny

                Re: turn it round ...

                >>"The idea that Kelly was murdered is frankly pretty absurd"

                You have no idea what you are talking about. Many very respectable people consider it a very serious possibility and we had a very major inquiry into it (the Hutton report) and several members of parliament called for that campaign. You have, I'm going to repeat this, no idea what you're talking about. For example your following two comments:

                >>"Here's a guy with very loose connections to the Iraq thing"

                Assuming if by "the Iraq thing" you mean the invasion of Iraq, he did not have "very loose connections". He was one of the chief weapons inspectors for the UN, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in uncovering Saddam's biological weapons programs the first time around. He was one of the world's foremost experts on Iraq's weapons capabilities and treated as such being an advisor to both JIT and British Intelligence services on the subject. He was also one of the proof-readers of the dossier which was the legal basis for UK involvement in Iraq. Only a special kind of ignorance could say he "had very loose connections to the Iraq thing" and I'm saddened to find that I'm conversing with an idiot. Your second statement is similarly imbecilic:

                >>with no real voice (literally)

                He was the primary source of information on this to the one of the UK's biggest newspapers and undermined the entire legal basis for war. The information he provided (which is subsequently shown to be true, btw) was read or listened to by most of the nation. And you call that "no real voice (literally)". He was an official advisor to the UN and the UK government! No voice? He was a major voice in what you call "the Iraq thing".

                You've just typed his name into a search engine, haven't you? You have no conception of the context for any of this. For example you write:

                >> If the assumption is the government goes around arbitrarily killing people who simply criticise it

                Clearly you have no idea what was actually at stake here. This wasn't someone "criticizing" the government. In order for British Prime Minister to take Britain to war, there had to be a legal basis to do so. Do you get that? We would not have gone to war without a legal basis to do so and the British Prime Minister would have been convicted of war crimes for doing so. Got that? The legal basis for war came down to Britain arguing that Iraq had WMDs. And here was one of their own chief weapons inspectors who had led big parts of the investigations formerly, saying there was not a case for this.

                For you to present this as the UK government killing people for "criticizing it" shows a complete ignorance of what you're talking about. Without a case that Iraq had WMD, there was no legal basis for war and the UK would not have been able to go to war. That was what was at stake and Kelly threatened that. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Iraq and many British soldiers amongst them. It's not as if the architects of that war didn't think there would be such casualties. If people are knowingly able to cause that much death for whatever reason, do you really think one more body in the foundations would stop them? It defies all logic to suppose people would commit to a course of action that condemned huge numbers of people to death yet allow one more life to stand in their way. Are you arguing that British Intelligence lacks the capability to arrange a suicide? Of course not. Are you arguing they don't have motive? Of course they do as demonstrated. Are you saying the architects of the Iraq war would shy away from killing someone? By definition, they haven't. So what is it in all this that you are calling "frankly pretty absurd"?

                And all this ignorance on your part in order to try and construct some case against Russia! One can point out flaws in Russia without having to pretend one's own government never gets blood on its hand.

                1. streaky

                  Re: turn it round ...

                  Nice angry rant.

                  Political/legal case for invading Iraq wasn't based solely on one specific document. Either way Kelly had already spilled his guts as you are perfectly aware.

                  Using a lot of "don't know what you're talking about" for somebody making claims on the legality of something which hasn't even been challenged anywhere. If the govt is going to bump people off for leaking things even of minor value Snowden, Greenwald, Assange and many other people (earlier example from before Kelly so we can't pretend it's stopped now: David Shayler) would be dead. These people are extremely easy to get at. The stuff Kelly talked about isn't worth killing him over, anybody arguing it is.. well, they're remarkably naive. It wasn't even the government's entire case for the invasion of Iraq, but on the offchance (again, hypothetically) it was, it doesn't mean it's some sort of threat to government, in fact it didn't even cause Tony Blair personal embarrassment - he won a third term 2 years later.

                  As for making a case against Russia, the case makes itself. They put people they don't like in jail, often they kill them, the end. Don't ask me ask Amnesty.

                  Because you're personally angry doesn't actually make anything you say objectively true. I'm quite aware of who David Kelly was - I'm pointing out that he wasn't nor could be any sort of legal or existential threat to the government of the time. Nothing about what he said or could have known at the time has been that because much more than what he knew then has come out. Or put another way; killing him would be a huge waste of time. Everything he knew was his opinion of a) Iraq and b) The Dossier - and any 3 year old could frame it that way. Shit - I just did.

                  1. x 7

                    Re: turn it round ...

                    No need to kill Shaylor - instead they just fucked up his mind with drugs

                    He now claims to be the Messiah and lives as a transvestite.

                    Snowden managed to get to Russia before he was topped.

                    To get at Assange you'd have to infiltrate the embassy. That won't happen, but wait until he's out......

                    As for Kelly, he wasn't silenced for what he said, but for what he might say. He knew too much about the research at Porton Down and elsewhere: after he'd opened his mouth about one issue he couldn't be trusted not to do it again regarding other topics. And don't forget that other British military idiom, as Candide put it "pour encourager les autres"

                    1. streaky

                      Re: turn it round ...

                      The idea that Kelly was a target but other people weren't/aren't is pretty silly. I don't think I can underline this enough.

    4. Mark 85

      Re: turn it round ...

      How do you spell 'hypocrisy' in American English?

      You can either spell it out: "C-o-n-g-r-e-s-s" or use an abbreviation: "N-S-A". HTH.

  9. JaitcH
    FAIL

    If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

    1. Invaded Panama and arrested Noriega;

    2. It wouldn't have invaded Cambodia during the American War in VietNam;**

    3. It wouldn't have invaded Laos during the American War in VietNam;

    4. It wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan;

    5. It wouldn't have invaded Iraq;

    6; Ir wouldn't have changed the government in Iraq;

    7. It would have told Pakistan about killing Bin Laden before the fact;

    8. It wouldn't have rendered prisoners from one country to another;

    9. It wouldn't have used waterboarding/other harsh interrogation methods in “black site” jails;

    10. It breached Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949;

    11. It breached Article 147, “unlawful deportation/transfer/unlawful confinement of protected person”;

    12. It operated an illegal international “disappearance” operation, on an international scale'

    Etc.

    In other words, the USA treats the world with contempt.

    **We are having a huge celebration of America's defeat and departure from VietNam FORTY YEARS AGO right across the country on April 29th. Tyrants and sovereign terrorists can be beaten..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

      It mounted an armed invasion "regime change" of Grenada - whose Head of State was Queen Elizabeth II - without warning the British Government first. Maggie was supposed to be best of pals with Ronnie. What were our intelligence services doing?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

        British Intelligence was playing Daisy chain Pass the (spunk) parcel

        Its a Very British Upper class Pubic school game

        Now you have read this Try getting that picture out of your mind

      2. x 7

        Re: If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

        we knew....the info was leaked but had to be sat on.

        The reason the UK wasn't officially told was that the yanks had a leak in the state department, and Reagan couldn't trust them. So State weren't told, so no official notification passed to the UK. What the yanks didn't know was there was another leak elsewhere, we were unofficially told but couldn't action it in order to protect OUR mole in the Shite House

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

      42. It destabilised the democratically elected left-wing Australian government in the '60s

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: If the USA gave a damn about international laws and treaties, it would not have ...

      Wait you forgot some.

      13. Wouldn't have overthrown an elected government in Iran due to threat of oil nationalization (gee why do they not trust the west, UK hands on that one too).

      14. Wouldn't have supported that lovely defender of human rights, Pinochet

      15. Wouldn't have sold arms to the our enemy Iranians to prop up the Contras (one country's terrorists is another country freedom fighters)

      16. Wouldn't have funded Latin American dirty wars by spreading crack cocaine around the world (thanks CIA!).

      etc. Sadly our foreign policy is not gun boat policy these days its bully boy policy. All for the %1ers.

  10. Daniel Hedley
    Thumb Up

    "As well as the Irish government, almost 30 technology companies ..."

    Isn't there anyone else who actually finds this very encouraging? Brad Smith has long made his views on this clear, but everyone else who matters seems to be piling in behind him.

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What an insult

    Microsucks has ignored U.S. anti-trust laws and anti-trust laws in every country in the world to reap billions in revenues annually from selling defective goods. Now they want to pretend the U.S. government is being unreasonable by requesting data to maintain public security and deter cybercrime? PLEASE Microsucks, pull your head outta your arse and get in touch with reality. Bill Gates and other Microsucks cronies belong in prison for 35 or more years for consumer fraud perpetuated world wide.

    BTW, JaitcH's rant is a complete FAIL for sure. Denial is not a river in Egypt.

    1. streaky

      Re: What an insult

      So you're saying they should just hand over the data?

    2. returnmyjedi

      Re: What an insult

      Microsucks!! That is bloody genius. You sir have the wit of Wilde (the Kids in America one that is, natch).

    3. Mark 85

      Re: What an insult

      Yeah.. they ran roughshod for profit. This about profit too... if they lose, they lose all the profit from Europe and everywhere else. And at this point, it's not just MS... it's every US cloud company.

    4. dorsetknob

      Re: What an insult

      Microsuck is Caught between a Federal Prison warder and Bubba the gay convict

      either way they are going to take it up the corporate Ass

      If the Feds win they stand to lose all overseas sales and Business ($MONEY$)

      No one in the sane rest of the world will want ANY Microsuck product because there will be NO Information security ever again.

      That document on your windows pc Created with American Software "Now the precedent has been set " ( is or will be ) Subject to American law and Control After all it was created with American Software

      If they "microsuck" win then still the rest of the world will still wonder if they can be trusted (Back Door Deals)

      either way Sales of KY Jelly are soaring in Redmond because they know bubba and the feds are Queuing up and at the Back of the queue is the EURO DYKES with their razor studded Dido's

  12. x 7

    Presumably if they did hand over the data they'd be in breach of Irish law and would be prosecuted / fined accordingly?

    1. Sanctimonious Prick
      Happy

      @x 7

      Yeah, but only the Irish arm. So who's gonna care?

      1. x 7

        Re: @x 7

        Considering Microsoft Europe is based in Dublin, and all Euopean sales are invoiced from there, potentially any disciplinary action could be quite traumatic to the business

        1. streaky

          Re: @x 7

          Why are we pretending the Irish government would ever bill any US multinational either tax or fines - for the sake of those 500 people who work for them. Not that I'd ever suggest any of that was related to the reason the Irish economy collapsed. Noooo...

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Too Bad Hilary Clinton didn't think of this sooner! This could be an obvious plot to overthrow Ireland or maybe someone with something to hide chose to store e-mail in a foreign country. You guessed it!

  14. Chris G

    Don't piss off Ireland

    There are more Irish people in America than in Ireland, last time I saw a Paddy's day there, a conservative guess would be about 200.000.000 of them.

    1. Sanctimonious Prick
      Trollface

      Re: Don't piss off Ireland

      "200.000.000"

      What? Is that an IPv3 address?

    2. x 7

      Re: Don't piss off Ireland

      Hilary probably doesn't realise she's married into an Irish family. But there again, Bill is probably to thick to be aware of his ancestry.

      But to push the argument further, as it was only a marriage of convenience, and she's a dyke, what does she care anyway?

  15. ben_myers

    And the other side of the argument...

    Large multinational TRANS-national companies like Microsoft, HSBC, Barclays, Google, Lenovo, Goldman Sachs play it both ways. If the US (or UK or Canadian or Romulan) law favored them, they would be all for enforcement. When the law or law enforcement is against their business interests, they bitch, complain, make public pronouncement and pay the lobbyists with access to the legislative and regulatory bodies of countries.

    Tho American, I sure do not favor unfettered electronic surveillance by the NSA, CIA, FBI or any other 3- and 4-letter word government agencies. But there is no common ground between the wronged and the government, so they can't even reach a compromise.

    Neither party, government or Microsoft borg, gets my sympathy here.

  16. MrXavia
    Alien

    Microsoft in the right?

    Ok What universe is this??

    Please someone send me back to my home universe because this is mad, I am supporting Microsoft in something other than buying their ergonomic Keyboards... (seriously best keyboards you can buy IMHO)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like